I think no matter what course the U.S. takes in this mess in the middle east we ARE going to back to war mode. The U.S. should pull out our troops, grab some popcorn, and sit back and see what happens. But I really think our time over there is far from over.

R.I.P. for the 6,717 (and counting) for the servicemen and women never coming home.

Hey, loser. We--and I do mean we couch potatoes who fought the struggle to find the remote so we could watch Geraldo give away positions--fought to defend the liberty of the Iraqi Ministry of Oil building.

See that building breathing free, basking in the warmth of freedom from want, safe in the knowledge that the building's children will grow up in freedom and liberty? That's what we fought for. That's what we won. As long as the Iraqi Oil Ministry building is free then the loss of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars will be judged worth it. Now where's that remote? Damn soccer game is back on.

HeartBurnKid:mofa: HeartBurnKid: He's got a point. California proves that people love getting services from the government, but don't like actually paying for it.

Not sure what you're getting at; we have a budget surplus and voted in legislators who said that we needed to raise taxes. Is California some sort of failed state? Is it because we put guacamole on everything? Because that's sort of a running joke -- we don't really put guacamole on everything, but we are tolerant of those who want to, and try to make guacamole available if they want it.

No, California's not a failed state. Not by a longshot. We just have a bad habit of voting all kinds of earmarks into the budget via the initiative process, then damn near revolting when Sacramento raises taxes or makes other cuts to pay for it all, to the point we've made it nigh impossible for them to do so. You notice how we just now finally got things in line now that the Democrats have a supermajority? That's because that's what it takes for the California budget process to work, with the ways we the people have micromanaged it.

And guacamole is awesome, I put it on everything I can, and I'll not hear another bad word about it.

Actually, the problem was that a 2/3 supermajority was required to pass a state budget in California. So Californians would vote YES on Prop Buy All The Things and then the Republicans in the legislature would refuse to allow the state to raise taxes to pay for Buy All The Things. I was under the impression that requirement had been fixed, but Wikipedia tells me the rule is still there, so I guess the Democratic supermajority is why things don't suck anymore.

I live in Seattle now. Last year (?) WA had a proposition on the ballot that would require a 2/3 supermajority to increase any taxes. I posted numerous times on Facebook about how this was a bad, bad idea, while citing CA as an example. But, I am only one person with a small circle of FB friends, and the measure passed. So, WA is farked. YAAAAAY!

Right at the start I asked a simple question: Why do we need to liberate them?

I mean, the Americans fought for their freedom, the British, the French. We picked up weapons and defeated people who either went overseas or got their heads chopped off/guillotined. If the guy is as hated as everyone says he is, why is he in power?

And don't give me that "iron rule/feared" thing. Man up, nancies and fight. If you don't care enough about freedom to take a bullet, why should I?

After the invasion I did start to wonder if I was wrong. They had a government, elections and so forth.

But everyone, not just intelligence and history experts can see the truth: Iraq is a factional country. You've got Sunnis and Shia and they hate each other. One gets power, they crap on the other. Saddam the dictator gave all the juicy jobs to his sunni pals, but Maliki the leader elected by a shia majority does the same. This was just never going to work. That's why we've got this sunni insurrection going on. And I'm sure that various experts were pointing this out and were ignored by the chickenhawks.

mofa:HeartBurnKid: He's got a point. California proves that people love getting services from the government, but don't like actually paying for it.

Not sure what you're getting at; we have a budget surplus and voted in legislators who said that we needed to raise taxes. Is California some sort of failed state? Is it because we put guacamole on everything? Because that's sort of a running joke -- we don't really put guacamole on everything, but we are tolerant of those who want to, and try to make guacamole available if they want it.

Mike Chewbacca:Actually, the problem was that a 2/3 supermajority was required to pass a state budget in California. So Californians would vote YES on Prop Buy All The Things and then the Republicans in the legislature would refuse to allow the state to raise taxes to pay for Buy All The Things. I was under the impression that requirement had been fixed, but Wikipedia tells me the rule is still there, so I guess the Democratic supermajority is why things don't suck anymore.

That is exactly the problem. And it's the voters of California, via the initiative process, who put that rule in place.

DemonEater:The only parts of that I took issue with were when he suggested that the war was in part about killing muslims, and some of his invective and angry language.

Iraq was about as secular a state as you could GET in the middle east, thanks to Saddam patterning himself on Stalin and realising that it was the only way to keep the peace between all the different sects). There are far more effective places to go if you want to shoot people over religion. No, I think the war was about getting the guy who pissed off W's daddy, was about handing huge sums of money over to Halliburton, and was about trying to get American companies' hands on all that oil, they just failed badly at that last part.

As for some of the things he said, well, he's obviously angry, and I totally understand that, but when you get angry you say things that might put off a reasonable person who desperately needs to read and understand your argument, which would be a shame because everyone right now needs to understand exactly what the fark is wrong with Iraq and why we just cannot go back there.

As a professional mediator, my question is not "Why would we go?" but "What would we want to achieve if we did go?" What would be the point of going? None of this "we have to end terrorism" or liberating the Iraqis from dictators or terrorists b/s...what would WE, the United States, want to achieve from going to war?

Sun Tzu said "War is a matter of grave importance to the state, it is a matter of life or death, victory or defeat, and must be thoroughly considered by the leaders." Sun Tzu also said "The main goal in war is victory." Without knowing what the purpose we want to achieve would be, there can be no goal, and hence no victory.

Merely going back to Iraq because "we didn't finish" or because "we need to rescue them" is not good enough. If it does not benefit US, we should not go. And if the goal is to rescue our oil interests, then at least we should be honest about it. Then we can have an honest goal, and an honest--if venal--victory.

Warchild:Will-Mun: Does that mean your views on the Bush Wars also changed?

Absolutely. Hell, I'll man up and say I was dead wrong.

Will-Mun: I didn't mean to pick on you.

No problemo.

Hey nothing bad about being wrong. I remember being in High School with friends, and we were all glad Bush won because Gore would have made M Rated games illegal! (Stupid stupid teenager.) When the invasion started, I remember wondering if this would be the shortest war in American history! (This was back when the 'invasion' only lasted 20 days and then was crowned a 'success')

But as time passed I started, well, paying attention. I learned and changed my views. Then I learned more and changed them even further. Ten years ago I was a 19 year old kid with a pentagram around my neck, who didn't vote, defiantly calling myself an Independent. Now I'm an Atheist and while I haven't declared a party (mostly cause there's no true Liberal party in America) I would most likely be called a Liberal Populist.

It's those who refuse to look back at the people they were and sneer that scare the crap out of me.

Will-Mun:Warchild: Will-Mun: Does that mean your views on the Bush Wars also changed?

Absolutely. Hell, I'll man up and say I was dead wrong.

Will-Mun: I didn't mean to pick on you.

No problemo.

Hey nothing bad about being wrong. I remember being in High School with friends, and we were all glad Bush won because Gore would have made M Rated games illegal! (Stupid stupid teenager.) When the invasion started, I remember wondering if this would be the shortest war in American history! (This was back when the 'invasion' only lasted 20 days and then was crowned a 'success')

But as time passed I started, well, paying attention. I learned and changed my views. Then I learned more and changed them even further. Ten years ago I was a 19 year old kid with a pentagram around my neck, who didn't vote, defiantly calling myself an Independent. Now I'm an Atheist and while I haven't declared a party (mostly cause there's no true Liberal party in America) I would most likely be called a Liberal Populist.

It's those who refuse to look back at the people they were and sneer that scare the crap out of me.

Gyrfalcon:As a professional mediator, my question is not "Why would we go?" but "What would we want to achieve if we did go?" What would be the point of going? None of this "we have to end terrorism" or liberating the Iraqis from dictators or terrorists b/s...what would WE, the United States, want to achieve from going to war?

Sun Tzu said "War is a matter of grave importance to the state, it is a matter of life or death, victory or defeat, and must be thoroughly considered by the leaders." Sun Tzu also said "The main goal in war is victory." Without knowing what the purpose we want to achieve would be, there can be no goal, and hence no victory.

Merely going back to Iraq because "we didn't finish" or because "we need to rescue them" is not good enough. If it does not benefit US, we should not go. And if the goal is to rescue our oil interests, then at least we should be honest about it. Then we can have an honest goal, and an honest--if venal--victory.

Consider what the cheerleaders for such would gain. They would be victorious in their own way. The US objective is (as it was in 2003) tacked-on to get the rubber-stamp of "popular" support.

born_yesterday:evil saltine: Obama is the worst. I long for the days when our foreign policy was a series of keywords: "evildoers", "liberty", "mushroom cloud". Bush was a guy you could have a beer with.

LadySusan:mofa: HeartBurnKid: He's got a point. California proves that people love getting services from the government, but don't like actually paying for it.

Not sure what you're getting at; we have a budget surplus and voted in legislators who said that we needed to raise taxes. Is California some sort of failed state? Is it because we put guacamole on everything? Because that's sort of a running joke -- we don't really put guacamole on everything, but we are tolerant of those who want to, and try to make guacamole available if they want it.

TwoBeersOneCan:Gonz: UNC_Samurai: And we've seen combat vererans become the most ardent opponents of war, like George McGovern.

I'm not comparing myself to McGovern, but as a combat veteran, I'll say this:

War is dumb. War is bad. War is wasteful, in every sense imaginable. We should avoid it.

You could also borrow from General Smedley Butler.

"War is a racket. It always has been. The few profit and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it with peace parlays at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out with resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war."

"The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits... ah, that is another matter. Twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, even eighteen hundred percent - the sky is the limit."

He has lots of good ones.

Not saying Butler was mistaken, but it does appear self-serving that he was just fine with being muscle in that racket for decades until a case of butt-hurt over a promotion he was "owed" but didn't get.

evil saltine:Obama is the worst. I long for the days when our foreign policy was a series of keywords: "evildoers", "liberty", "mushroom cloud". Bush was a guy you could have a beer with humiliate in Scrabble.

mindset zero:I think no matter what course the U.S. takes in this mess in the middle east we ARE going to back to war mode. The U.S. should pull out our troops, grab some popcorn, and sit back and see what happens. But I really think our time over there is far from over.

R.I.P. for the 6,717 (and counting) for the servicemen and women never coming home.

Does anyone here actually think going into Iraq (Part II) was a good idea? Anyone with half a brain could tell exactly where Rummy & Co. was going with the rhetoric. And now the same douchecanoes want Iraq (Part III).

If this country hasn't learned yet, right from wrong with respect to warfare, it is truly beyond hope.

I still have friends that not only insist, but demand that I acknowledge, that Saddam DID have Weapons of Mass Destruction and WAS in league with Al-Qaeda. They outright refuse to believe anything else, and tell me I've been brainwashed by the 'Lame Stream Media' to believe otherwise.

Then again, I have them as friends because we aren't in the same echo chamber of thought. We have civil, well thought conversations about things like this, and after overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they fall back on me being brainwashed. I exist as centrist as I can be, not letting hot button issues like Abortion or Gun Control take me too far from the center (I'm for abortion and want to arm the world, for the record), and I get information from both extremist sides of the spectrum.

As hard as I try to be a centrist, I tend to fall left, but realize the folly of the left and their inability to accomplish just about anything, because they're too busy fighting for the rights of the super minority (what about albino, ginger Native Americans? How can we accommodate them in our Beach party?). The Left can be feckless and distracted on the minutiae of a topic, so I tend to stay away from calling myself a Liberal.

What this guy said, I've been saying for the last 13 years, but he is, admittedly, more involved in the situation, far more invested and much better driving his point home. Verbosity is my sin. In the end, this guy is absolutely correct about his points, even if I don't agree with them 100% (race was never an issue for going to war, it was a by-product of the racist right wingers (not all are racist) back here at home, as a way to differentiate the enemy, similar to the pejoratives we used for the Germans and Japanese in WWII), but he has strong valid points throughout.

Rock on, former soldier. Keep preaching the Word. And forget the naysayers that will call you a coward, or Un-American, or that you don't love this country you put your life on the line for. That's how they fight those opposed to the wars: Psuedo-Patriotism and Cherry Picked Religiosity.

For all the Right Wingers, I simply put out this quote: "When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross." Now go look at the back of your SUV and tell me how many magnetic ribbons and flags you are displaying.

That being said, my secret, dirty little fantasy for this insurgence happening, and now that a carrier group is on the way into the gulf, is for our President to go to a joint session of congress and say the following

"Our military is ready, we know who the enemy is and where they are. Constitutionally only Congress may declare war. If you wish our troops and ships committed, declare war, put in place taxes and revenue to pay for it up front and give me clear and concise goals for our military leaders"

I would be glued to C-SPAN for the ensuing Republican meltdown.

OBAMA IS A POOR LEADER AND MUST BE IMPEACHED NOW!

There, I just summed it up for you./good to see at least ONE person remembers that Congress is the one that controls the purse strings and the right to declare war, John McCain sure doesn't//but if Obama ordered troops deployed, well then he's an imperialist usurper dictator who needs to be impeached the first time a Humvee full of American soldiers gets blown up, but in the meantime must be held accountable for every penny spent...right?

kpaxoid:Saw Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI) on CNN this morning. I believe she is a Democrat.

She gave a very clear and unemotional description of what the issues are and why there should be NO U.S. intervention in Iraq, including air strikes.

Meanwhile, Sen. Graham was comparing the current state to 911.

Yes, she is. Also a military officer who served in logistical support in Iraq, and a Hindi.

I'm pretty sure she's trying to be as different from her father as possible. (Mike Gabbard is a homophobic hard-line Christian who never served, sells health food quackery AND toffees, and only runs as a D because he knows how local politics work)

My point was that today's Americans can not, do not, think the way they thought in WWII.

You imagine we could still sacrifice for the greater war effort, and pull together against a common foe. That the populace is willing to sacrifice for their soldiery, and that the soldiery is being put into harm's way for a worthwhile effort. That taking down Saddam back then and taking down whoever the fark is tooling around in Iraq today is the equivalent of America's stepping up against Hirohito and Hitler.

Instead, the propaganda posters of those days have been repurposed for the express intent of viciously silencing the opposition-and political discourse has decayed along the same lines. That was the entire point of the original article, that the casus belli is NOT as good and clear as it was back then.

Then there's the matter of taxes and rationing, which was the point of the original poster. Today's neocons want it all-a war, and tax cuts. Military purchasing and debt control. The idea that you can't have it all is lost on them, if they can blame Obama on the fact that they are not getting it all.